Audit a URL and wait for the result

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the 1–3 minute blocking duration, the timeout behavior (returns the id for polling), and what the result contains. It does not mention plan/quota consumption or whether a re-run duplicates an audit, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences: what it does, when to reach for it, and the latency/timeout escape hatch. Front-loaded with the action, no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe return values — and it does (score, top actions, top issues, or an id on timeout). Combined with the latency warning and the polling alternatives, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both url and maxPages are already documented in the schema including the plan cap. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (lance un audit SEO & GEO LightSpot sur une URL), plus the synchronous behavior (attend la fin) and the returned payload (score, top actions, principaux problèmes). It names the downstream tools (get_audit_status / get_audit) so an agent can separate it from run_audit and the status/retrieval siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives a concrete usage scenario (« audite ce site et dis-moi quoi corriger ») and an explicit fallback path when the wait times out. It does not explicitly contrast with run_audit (the presumably fire-and-forget sibling), so the when-not-this-tool case is only implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.